David:Mike, these statements are an *enormous* leap from the actual study of
mirror neurons. It's my hunch that the hypothesis paraphrased above is
generally true, but it is *far* from being fully supported by, or understood
via, the empirical evidence.
[snip] these are all original or recently original observations about the
powers of the human brain and body which are beyond the powers of any digital
computer. You claimed never to have heard an original observation here re
digital computers' limitations - that's because you don't listen, and aren't
interested in the non-digital and non-rational. Obviously a pet in a virtual
world can have no real body or embodied integrity).
It seems that your magical views on human cognition are showing their colors
again; you haven't supplied any coherent argument as to why the hypothetical
function of mirror neurons (skills empathy with and mimicry of other embodied
entities or representations thereof) could not be duplicated by sufficiently
clever software written for digital computers.
David,
I actually did give the reason - but, fine, I haven't clearly explained it
enough to communicate. The reason is basically simple. All the powers discussed
depend on the cognitive ability to map one complex, irregular shape onto
another - and that involves a "fluid" transformation, (which is completely
beyond the power of any current software - or,to be more precise, any rational
sign system, esp. mathematics/geometry).
When you map your body onto that of the Dancers, (or anyone else's), you are
mapping two irregular shapes that are not geometrically comparable, onto each
other. There is no formulaic way to transform one into the other, and hence
perceive their likeness. Geometry and geometrically-based software can't do
this.
When you see that the outline map of Italy is like a boot - a classic example
of metaphor/analogy - there is no geometric, formulaic way to transform that
cartographic outline of that landmass into the outline of a boot. It is a
"fluid" transformation of one irregular shape into another irrregular shape.
When you *draw* almost any shape whatsoever, you are engaged in performing
fluid transformations - producing *rough* likenesses/shapes (as opposed to the
precise, formulaic likenesses of geometry). The shapes of the faces and flowers
you draw on a page are only v. (sometimes v.v.) roughly like the real shapes of
the real objects you have observed,
Think of a cinematic *dissolve* from one object, like a face, into another -
which is not a precise, formulaic morphing but simply a rough superimposition
of two shapes that are roughly alike. Crudely, you could say, your brain is
continually performing that sort of operation on the shapes of the world in
order to recognize them and compare them..
Or think of a face perceived through fluid rippling water. Your brain,
speaking v. loosely, is able to perform somewhat similar transformations on
objects.
The human mind deals in fluid shapes.
The human body continuously produces fluid shapes itself. When you move you
are continuously shaping and then fluidly transforming your body to fit the
world around you. When you reach out for an object, you start shaping your hand
to fit before you get there, and fluidly adjust that hand shape as required to
actually grasp the object.
Geometry can only perform regular/rational transformations of objects - even
topology deals in the regular likenesses besides otherwise non-comparable
objects like a doughnut and a cup handle. Even, at its current, most flexible
extreme, the geometry of "free-form" transformation is still dealing with
formulaic transformations, that are not truly free-form/fluid and so not able
to handle the operations I've been discussing. But the very term, free-form,
indicates what geometry would like but is unable to achieve).
There is an obvious difference between geometry and art/drawing. Computers in
their current guise are only geometers and not artists. They cannot map shapes
directly - physically- onto each other, (with no intermediate operations), and
they cannot fluidly (and directly) transform shapes into each other. The brain
is manifestly an artist and manifestly organized extremely extensively on
mapping lines - and those brain maps, as experiments show, are able to undergo
fluid transformations themselves in their spatial layout.
Another way to say this, is to say that the brain has and computers don't
have,imagination - they cannot truly handle/map images/shapes.
There is nothing magical about this. What it will require is a different
and/or additional kind of computer. A computer that can handle not only
rational operations, which all depend on taking things to (regular/rational)
pieces, but imaginative operations, which all depend on fluid comparisons of
(mainly irregular/irrational) wholes (without reducing them to pieces).. A
computer IOW that loosely copies not just one half, but both halves of the
human brain.
All the operations that equal general intelligence - visual object
recognition, analogy, metaphor, conceptualisation, and creativity - - all
depend on imagination - fluid transofrmations of whole shapes/forms. Rational
AI can't perform these operations - and hence has consistently got nowhere and
never will get anywhere - until it joins with imagination. (BTW, Ben, I'd be v.
interested to know where you have seen this last proposition before).
P.S. The only "magical" notion in this discussion is the idea that there is
such a thing as "virtual embodiment" - that a "cardboard cutout" of a pet or
other agent in a virtual world, can have any embodied properties, or embodied
perception or intelligence. Fluid mapping depends on having a fluid body.
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
